Unprecedented global integration, interdependence, and interconnectivity in politics, culture, information, technology, social life, and economy characterize globalization. Transnational companies orchestrate most of the global economic activity, which has increased capital investments and restructured labor markets across the globe. Globalization today is based on neoliberalism practices and philosophy, which have greatly affected the global labor division.
The current paper examines the changes that the labor market, particularly migrant labor, has experienced due to globalization and neoliberalism. The paper focuses on sweatshops, the role of transnational companies, and how these companies exploit migrant workers. The paper also addresses the issue of how the State moved away from the workforce through privatization due to globalization and how the change affected migrant labor globally. The paper also recommends potential solutions to shift from sweatshops and exploitation of migrants.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Keywords: Sweatshops, Transnational Corporations, Migrant labor.
1) As a result of globalization, the State moved away from the workforce through privatization. How did that change started and came till now?
It is vital to outline how states moved away from the workforce through privatization to understand the modern experiences of exploitation of migrant workers. Migrant exploitation is linked closely to transformations in society, the labor market, and the economy. The opening of economies and markets, together with globalization, greatly influence how businesses and States function across the globe (Lewis, Dwyer, Hodkinson & Waite 2015). Countries increasingly become part of a global exchange between States in which global competition leads to the shift in production to less-costly locations and various cost-cutting forms such as outsourcing of services and work (Bressán & Arcos, 2017). In turn, the workforce becomes flexible, which substantially influences the nature of jobs at the low paid and low skilled labor market since many migrant workers work here (Lewis et al., 2015).
The emergence of contemporary industrial capitalism involved an extended process that relied on the introduction of robust and predictable legislation and nation-states (Heiskala & Virtanen, 2011). During these changes, capital, land, and labor emerged as the foundation for contemporary theories in economics and the market economy (Polanyi, 2013). The emergence of the nation-state, the shift to a market economy, and the industrial revolution created the foundation for the existing political reality (Polanyi, 2013).
A lengthy period of economic growth occurred during the rebuilding of Europe following the Second World War. Things such as a period of economic growth and success (Keynesian macro-policies, government interventions, stable trade unions, and collective bargaining, job security and full-time employment, and high living standards), mass consumption and mass labor, and mass production characterized the period (Beck, 2000, pp.68-69). The period also observed the emergence of the State and public sector in the Western world, which led to the rise of the Western welfare state (Heiskala & Virtanen, 2011, pp. 15-17).
The growth stopped towards the end of the 1960s (Julkunen, 2008, p.81), in which industrial production failed to influence growth, and the costs of the industrial output increased due to the oil crises during the 1970s. Social security, wages, and the overall purchasing power, nevertheless, continued growing due to collective bargaining and unionization (Julkunen, 2008, pp.81-82). In turn, this led to a structural crisis and a Keynesianism crisis that involved slow economic growth, high unemployment, and high inflation (Julkunen, 2008). The issues led to a significant transformation in economic models and societal power relations towards the late 1970s and the early 1980s. A socialist movement also emerged during the 1970s seeking more State intervention and reforms, which posed an economic and political threat to the ruling upper classes (Harvey, 2007, pp.15-16). In turn, this led to the spread of a neoliberal turn to restore the power of the economic elites (Harvey, 2007, p.10).
Neoliberalism explains the shift towards free trade, free markets, and reduced roles of the State in welfare and regulation (Antonio & Bonanno, 2000, p.41). Many countries have experienced neoliberalism through partial developments, including increased labor market flexibility, deregulation of financial operations, and the introduction of monetarism, and a shift towards privatization (Harvey, 2007, p.87). Neoliberalism led to the removal of obstacles to the free capital movement and opened up economic globalization (Heiskala & Virtanen, 2011, p.22). The changes in society during the late 20th century involved a shift from the first to the second modernity in which social and economic transformations produced a period of insecurity (Powell, 2014). Employment relations became more flexible and deregulated in the new era (Beck, 2000). The uncertainties also transformed the idea of permanent and full-time employment, and the nature of paid labor (Julkunen, 2008). The era also led to the redistribution of risks towards the individual and away from the economy and State, which, in turn, led to short-term jobs and easy termination (Wickramasekara, 2008).
2) How did that impact migrant labor globally?
Based on research, neoliberalism through deregulation, liberalism, and privatization undermined labor rights with changes towards increased flexible work relations, production relocation to low-labor cost States, and non-standard working hours. Flexibility creates a split between high paying and low paying jobs, which causes specific jobs to become more precarious in which companies replace permanent jobs with short term employment, involuntary self-employment, subcontractors, part-time contracts, agency employees, and temporary contracts (Lewis et al., 2015). The contemporary sweatshop problem emerged during the early 1990s when the media highlighted the outsourcing practices of the apparel industry. The most targeted industry by antisweatshop movements was the garment sector due to its labor standards violations including the working conditions (O'rourke, 2006).
Sweatshops are wrong for various reasons. For instance, sweatshops perpetuate fundamental human rights' violation and promulgate physical and psychological abuse, which contradicts the considered ideas of basic morality and strategic business objective (Arnold & Hartman, 2003). For instance, sweatshops in China that supply their products to Multinationals such as Walmart and Apple violate labor rights through forced overtime, Wages below the set minimum, and long working hours (War on Want, 2016, September 21). Sweatshops can also be considered as tools for global competitiveness. The claim regarding the importance of sweatshops to sustainable economic growth entails that all kinds of jobs offer specific positive outcomes for society. These outcomes also benefit others who are external to the relationship between employer and laborer (Arnold & Hartman, 2006). Sweatshops contribute to the short term underuse of labor resources in which people experience ignorance, and low hygienic and economic conditions to ensure the production process remains cost-competitive. The objective of this is capital accumulation. The transition from these conditions enables workers to receive work enrichment, education, and knowledge accumulation. In turn, this allows people to access specialized, better, and competitive jobs in the global work division. If the situation, nevertheless, does not transition, companies may reject facing competition even with reduced costs (Moran, 2004). An attempt by a company to keep wages under the amount through which the labor of workers increases profit and to impose intolerable and unappealing working conditions to increase revenues damages the company's ability to attract the employees that it needs (Moran, 2004, p.25) to increase revenues. Nike is a good example of this as it faced scandals because of its use of sweatshops involving exploitation of workers (Wilsey & Lichtig, n.d.).
Increased global market integration for capital, services, and goods across countries has influenced cross-border people and labor movement by leading to restrictions against these movements using complex immigration policies and laws the foster state sovereignty (Wickramasekara, 2008, p.12 49). Most countries implement policies that are biased against the entry of low-skilled workers because of the experience of immigrant work programs in Western Europe during the 1960s that led to settling down of temporary workers (Wickramasekara, 2008, p.1251). The situation is different now in which globalization through fast and cheap communication and travel allow people to communicate and commute between countries easily without the need to settle (Wickramasekara, 2008, p.1251). The significant shifts and changes in the labor markets and the economy have led to forced labor and exploitation in modern western societies. The exploitation of migrant workers emerges due to changes in the labor markets, society, and the economy (Lewis, Dwyer, Hodkinson & Waite 2015). These changes significantly affect the rise of forms of exploitation and how the State and the criminal justice system address them. Many international migrants undergo mundane forced labor experiences (Lewis et al., 2015). Exploitation changes in intensity and severity over time because, as separate actions, they may be considered to be less severe, but when found together with both in range and the extent they depict a comprehensive view of exploitation. The continuum of exploitation is based on lack of freedom in which the lack of freedom is considered to be human trafficking when it is severe (Lewis et al., 2015, 582). Countries such as Bangladesh and China offer cheap labor that Multinationals such as Nike, Gap, and Primemark among others capitalize on to mass produce goods. The factories, nevertheless, support child labor and exploitation of workers through underpayment and poor working conditions (Lewis et al., 2015)
Structural transformations in the labor markets have also led to increased deregulation. Globalization diminishes the bargaining power of labor because of the relocation of companies to locations with low labor standards, which threatens labor (Wickramasekara, 2008). Globalization also uses 'race-to-the-bottom" labor standards to reduce the level of local labor-protective laws and promote regulatory competition using low labor standards to attract companies. It achieves this by pitting labor organizations against each other, and by deteriorating the political power of labor (Davies & Vadlamannati, 2013). While deregulation and high labor mobility create more jobs, the jobs are found primarily in the low-wage labor-intensive industries (Wickramasekara, 2008). Regulative limits such as the implementation of the minimum wage, nevertheless, may improve these jobs (Lewis et al., 2015). In turn, this subjects migrant workers to regulation and the means to restrain the effect of regulation. Weak regulatory contexts such as the potential for workers to waive their working hours' rights, nevertheless, lead to more exploitation of vulnerable workers (Wickramasekara, 2008). Demand for low-cost labor and restrictive asylum and immigration policies that structure and compromise or remove fundamental rights to residence, welfare, and work for all except the most prosperous migrants characterize the interplay of deregulated labor markets (Lewis et al., 2015, p.594). The precariousness and insecurity of vulnerable migrant workers is a function and a sign of how labor markets are structured.
Globalization also led to child labor in sweatshops in which developing countries set the minimum wage under the standard of living to support an individual or a family while multinationals seek cheap labor to mass-produce products while ignoring loose child labor regulations in the host country (Stiglitz, Walsh, & Gillette, 2002). Bangladesh’s garment trade sweatshops use child labor substantially (Worstall, 2015). It is, however, vital to consider alternatives to child labor before condemning the issue since child labor contributes a substantial amount of money to support families (Powell, 2014). The drawback of child labor is that it adversely affects the health of children and leads to future unemployment, illiteracy, population growth, poverty, and critical health situations (Stiglitz, Walsh, & Gillette, 2002, p.478).
Migration being a temporal aspect (Bressán & Arcos, 2017), affects families where parents, particularly fathers, free themselves from emotional labor while relegating all the caring and emotional work on their partners (Oso & Ribas-Mateos, 2013, p.222). It is also essential to consider the importance of migrant embeddedness and power imbalance within families. A migrant father can exercise his fatherly roles as an economic provider due to the repeated and prolonged absences (Oso & Ribas-Mateos, 2013, p.222). While financial remittances are vital, they have a more considerable influence on family relations beyond the family's financial situation and the economy. These remittances influence family, gender, and social roles, and contribute to the emotional gap between non-migrating and migrating family members. The father or parent may expect love and respect as reciprocity for financial assistance to maintain his family status, even though this is not always the case (Oso & Ribas-Mateos, 2013, p.222). Most non-migrant families left behind find it challenging to reconcile respect and live with withdrawal and absence of a parent from daily things (Oso & Ribas-Mateos, 2013, p.222). In turn, this demonstrates how migration and parenting affect each other reciprocally in which migrating parents experiencing emotional estrangement from their kids use financial ways to substitute for their lack of involvement in family matters.
Sweatshops are also connected with direct financial investment and also affect local taxation. Sweatshops today are related to globalization and the generalization of the international supply chain directly (Arnold & Hartman, 2003). The importance of sweatshops is directly related to the level of foreign direct investment (Moran, 2004). The risks associated with FDI in developing countries are many due to the absence of saving and undercapitalization of different businesses. The significant risk of entails substituting industries focused on export to other activities. Multinational companies contracting with sweatshops can eliminate competing companies in the host countries through techniques such as economy of scale and superior technology or the granting of special privileges by host governments to the multinationals (Moran, 2004). An effective way of increasing job competitiveness in developing countries to enhance job prospects entails creating better-trained employees through training and work experience (Arnold & Hartman, 2006), which is what FDI does.
Multinationals intend to optimize the work of the staff based on the microeconomic theory ideas to ensure cost-competitiveness due to low wages. These companies pay workers the value of the addition to the value of the final product that they offer during their work. Studies, however, show that multinationals regularly provide high wages and the right working conditions than local companies (Lewis et al., 2015). Countries with weak labor standards do not typically attract multinationals. Poor labor practices limit the ability of a company to retain and attract good workers, which in turn leads to low profits and productivity while eroding the competitiveness of the company in the market. The meaning of this is that countries with inadequate labor standards have low FDI than the norm based on the other features of the country (Moran, 2004, p.81). It is possible for a country to experience sustainable economic growth due to sweatshops if the country is willing to capitalize on its low-cost benefits to attract FDI.
Developing countries can experience strong economic growth only if they can capitalize on their low-cost benefits to attract FDI because many cheap jobs are the main wealth of these countries. Work is, therefore, the primary way of creating wealth, while creation constitutes an effective way of improving the economic security and well-being of people (Moran, 2004). The basic fact that emerges, however, due to the complex global labor standards is that developing countries require both better and more jobs. Populations in these countries are still increasing while they still need food, healthcare, and education for many people. It is thus better to have bad jobs with inadequate wages than to lack wages completely (Arnold & Hartman, 2006). Workers in sweatshops are mainly young women from the countryside since the beginning of the phenomenon across the globe. Living conditions are hard in the countryside due to the global market for food and farm products (Powell, 2014). Many young women leave these locations without technical and educational competencies to seek work, which is why sweatshops are vital in the developing world.
3. What would be the solution to get away from sweatshops and exploitation of migrants?
The legal ban is an effective way to fight sweatshops. Western countries today have enacted laws against sweatshops even though less developed countries have also passed laws to control sweatshops. While these laws are poorly enforced or ignored because of insufficient resources and a deliberate rule by governments to attract multinationals, they are still anti-sweatshop (Arnold & Hartman, 2006). Studies, however, show that labor laws and other measures to protect migrant labor fail to improve the working conditions of employees. Working conditions improve due to increased worker productivity (Powell, 2014). Besides, sweatshops benefit developing countries through the provision of above-average living standards for workers compared to other companies in those countries (Powell, 2014). It is, therefore, crucial to the anti-sweatshop movement to understand how the history of sweatshops unfolded in developed countries (Powell, 2014, p.120).
Awareness campaigns regarding improved working conditions are another approach that companies can take to deal with sweatshops and migrant worker exploitation. For example, awareness campaigns can be raised to urge consumers to consider how their consumption choices are connected to the conditions and rights of workers in other locations. The campaigns can also encourage them to employ various market-based approaches such as identifying firms that violate the rights of workers and shaming them, and through boycotts (O'rourke, 2006). Companies and anti-sweatshop supports can also support the quest for better work conditions through the economic efficiency language by highlighting the importance of safe work conditions and healthy workers in increased productivity (Arnold & Hartman, 2005). These campaigns, nevertheless, change the objective of labor struggles towards mobilizing consumers across the world to reward or punish companies from domestic negotiations in the workplace described by power imbalances between organizations and workers (Seidman, 2007, pp.17-18). The campaigns also mostly base their appeals by positioning workers as victims of global capitalism, which victimizes the process by avoiding empowering workers while highlighting the vulnerability and helplessness of workers. Campaigns against sweatshops ought to emphasize the rights of workers and citizens to engage in negotiations individually about issues that affect them (Seidman, 2007, p.34).
Another potential solution involves interviewing employees as a critical aspect of monitoring procedures in a company since workers are present continually at the site of production and possess real knowledge of working conditions (O'rourke, 2006, p.910). It is also vital to conduct the interview carefully because of the potential for managers to coach workers earlier to offer misleading information or threaten them if they provide correct information to deceive monitors (Bressán & Arcos, 2017). A system in which companies require compliance with labor standards and reduced product prices encourages the deception (O'rourke, 2006, p.907-908). The context of the interview also influences whether workers will lie or tell the truth (Sonnenberg & Hensler, 2013). Group interviews within companies are vulnerable to coercion and coaching because of the failure to protect the anonymity of workers or the potential for other colleagues to name those who tell the truth (Finnegan, 2013). Another issue that limits the implementation and operation of equitable and effective labor governance institutions to further the interests of workers in sweatshops include the failure of companies to handle the challenges of subcontracting associations in the product commodity chain.
It is challenging to identify employees and employers clearly through subcontracting (O'rourke, 2006, p.907). In turn, this increases the difficulty of accurately locating those who are responsible for workers' rights and labor standards (O'rourke, 2006). The sourcing and production practices under the control and coordination of buyers undermine workers' rights and labor standards, even though factories employ the formal workforce directly (O'rourke, 2006). According to Taylor (2011, p.447), factories must comply with specific labor standards based on buyers' views, even though buyers shorten lead times and reduce costs simultaneously. In turn, the demand by buyers restricts the ability of factory owners to gain profits due to intense competition while implementing excellent labor standards need to meet the buyers' demand for flexible production to address changing needs (Taylor, 2011, p.452).
Therefore, even if multi-stakeholder initiatives want to engage in long term commitment to improving working conditions, they are limited in their ability (O'rourke, 2006). The market-driven governance framework prioritizes the accumulation of capital over labor standards in which multi-stakeholder initiatives focus on observing production in individual companies while failing to engage with reducing wages and threats to the rights of workers (O'rourke, 2006). Monitoring also targets formal production space mainly than informal one even though short-term work and subcontracting contracts occur mainly in sweatshops and enhance the evasion of workers' rights and labor standards (O'rourke, 2006, pp.907-908). The meaning of this is that the monitoring program lacks jurisdiction to safeguard many workers whose rights and labor standards are threatened while allowing factories and buyers to protect their operations from scrutiny (Sonnenberg & Hensler, 2013). Multinationals, however, reflect a portion of the business since most suppliers work for other multinationals. The involvement is real for export processing zones in which voluntary conduct codes entail contracts that safeguard specific employees if production stays in the same location and for all countries in which a large part of domestic sweatshops produce for sale in informal markets or for local companies (Bressán & Arcos, 2017). Local monitoring, nevertheless, determines the implementation of labor standards in both cases. The views about multinational sweatshops ignore many small and medium-sized sweatshops that produce and sell domestically and are disconnected from the larger brands and multinationals. The local sweatshops differ from the global ones that are mostly connected to large brands and subcontractors (Bressán & Arcos, 2017). The private monitoring of the brans determines the implementation of labor standards in the latter case (O'rourke, 2006).
Several issues impede the remediation of labor rights issues in factories or companies. For example, companies shield their remediation, reporting, and monitoring activities from scrutiny, which prevents the proper verification of their claims regarding their affirmative compliance with regulations (O'rourke, 2006, pp.909-910). Many factories lack transparency, which impedes the enforcement of rules in various ways. For example, no insight can be gained from one confidential report offered by a company to verify their remediation attempts because many companies avoid monitoring and documenting whether previous issues were addressed (Sonnenberg & Hensler, 2013). Companies need to keep records of their efforts in dealing with problems because they demonstrate whether companies take meaningful steps to remedy issues of labor rights (Sonnenberg & Hensler, 2013). Concealing information prevents the public from examining the performance of companies concerning the remediation procedure. Even companies who value their reputation may fail to take meaningful measures if they doubt their failures to handle violations of labor rights will be exposed (O'rourke, 2006, p.911). Besides, migrant workers' organizations are rare because some migrant sweatshop owners create approaches that naturalize labor in sweatshops while channeling grievances among workers to defend the "ethnic economy" against local contractors (Bressán & Arcos, 2017). Responses against these conditions emerge mainly from community organizations and non-governmental organizations, not from workers' organizations. Reactions are, nevertheless, contextual and range from the absence of struggles to the enactment of progressive laws highlighting the role of firms in subcontracting chains (Bressán & Arcos, 2017). It is thus vital for labor unions to identify these realities, implement measures accordingly, and acknowledge their failures to hinder the replacement procedure of their membership by migrant workers, not in unions.
Conclusion
Globalization has led to the integration of various life domains in which Transnational Corporations foster global economic activity, which in turn has restructured the global labor market. The current globalization is founded on neoliberalism ideas and practices. Neoliberalism emerged as states moved away from the workforce through privatization. The transformations that followed led to the emergence of the modern experience of exploitation among migrant workers through sweatshops operated by Multinational companies and some local companies. Employment relations are now flexible and deregulated, which has changed the idea of full-time and permanent, including the nature of paid work. Neoliberalism has undermined labor rights through these work changes in which production is relocated to low-labor cost countries where migrant workers face poor working conditions.
Neoliberalism and globalization also influenced the emergence of sweatshops across the globe as Multinationals seek cheap labor for mass production. Sweatshops promote the violation of human rights and the psychological and physical abuse of workers. Neoliberalism and globalization have also affected the cross-border movement of labor and people, where countries impose restrictions against these movements through immigration policies and regulations. Deregulation of the labor market has diminished the bargaining power of labor as companies relocate to countries with low labor standards. Other issues such as child labor, power imbalances in families, and migrant embeddedness characterize the effect of globalization and neoliberalism.
Sweatshops, on the other hand, are beneficial to developing countries as they offer good jobs and good wages while increasing the competitiveness of workers through training and experience in the host country. Anti-sweatshop movements and legislation, nevertheless, have been proposed and enacted to deal with the issues of poor working conditions and inadequate labor standards. While laws are effective in dealing with the problems, studies show that rules are generally ineffective as past case studies demonstrate. Other anti-sweatshop measures include consumer awareness campaigns, interviews with workers directly to monitor working conditions, and multi-stakeholder initiatives. These measures face substantial challenges including lack of transparency in companies, failure to protect the anonymity of workers which can lead to termination if they expose their working conditions, the absence of labor union membership among migrant workers, and the focus of awareness campaigns on workers as victims rather than focusing on empowering workers to defend themselves individually.
Based on the identified studies, neoliberalism fosters the predominance of markets over governments and supports policies that deregulate the labor market. Neoliberal practices have led to the privatization of social services and flexible labor markets. Increased liberalization of trade policies has significantly affected migrant labor. Increasing flexibility in the labor market and income insecurity has compelled migrants to seek jobs across borders. Migrants, nevertheless, lack job security, experience poor working conditions, encounter wage disparities, and increased mobility.
References
Anderson, B. (2013). Us and them?: The dangerous politics of immigration control . OUP Oxford.
Antonio, R. J., & Bonanno, A. (2000). A New Global Capitalism? From" Americanism and Fordism" to" Americanization-Globalization". American Studies , 41 (2/3), 33-77.
Arnold, D. G., & Hartman, L. P. (2003). Moral imagination and the future of sweatshops. Business and Society Review , 108 (4), 425-461.
Arnold, D. G., & Hartman, L. P. (2005). Beyond sweatshops: Positive deviancy and global labour practices. BUSINESS ETHICS-OXFORD- , 14 (3), 206.
Arnold, D. G., & Hartman, L. P. (2006). Worker rights and low wage industrialization: How to avoid sweatshops. Human Rights Quarterly , 676-700.
Beck, U. (2000). Brave New World of Labour . Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bressán, J. M., & Arcos, A. (2017). How do Migrant Workers Respond to Labour Abuses in “Local Sweatshops”?. Antipode , 49 (2), 437-454.
Davies, R. B., & Vadlamannati, K. C. (2013). A race to the bottom in labor standards? An empirical investigation. Journal of Development Economics , 103 , 1-14.
Finnegan, B. (2013). Responsibility outsourced: Social audits, workplace certification and twenty years of failure to protect worker rights. Rep. AFL-CIO , 23 , 7-9.
Harvey, D. (2007). A brief history of neoliberalism . Oxford University Press, USA.
Heiskala, R., & Virtanen, A. (2011). Economics as a problem in social theory. In Risto Heiskala & Akseli Virtanen, (Eds., 2011) Economics and Social Theory I. The Old World Economy and the Great Change. Helsinki: Gaudeamus .
Julkunen, R. (2008). Paradoxes of New Work: Discussions in the 21st Century Work Process (s) Raija Julkunen . Counterweight.
Lewis, H., Dwyer, P., Hodkinson, S., & Waite, L. (2015). Hyper-precarious lives: Migrants, work and forced labour in the Global North. Progress in Human Geography , 39 (5), 580- 600.
Miller, J. (2003). Why economists are wrong about sweatshops and the antisweatshop movement. Challenge , 46 (1), 93-122.
Moran, T. H. (2004). Beyond sweatshops: Foreign direct investment and globalization in developing countries . Brookings Institution Press.
O’rourke, D. (2006). Multi-stakeholder regulation: privatizing or socializing global labor standards?. World development , 34 (5), 899-918.
Oso, L., & Ribas-Mateos, N. (Eds.). (2013). The international handbook on gender, migration and transnationalism . Edward Elgar Publishing.
Polanyi, M. (2013). The logic of liberty: Reflections and rejoinders . Routledge.
Powell, B. (2014). Meet the old sweatshops: same as the new. The Independent Review , 19 (1), 109-122.
Taylor, M. (2011). Race you to the bottom… and back again? The uneven development of labour codes of conduct. New Political Economy , 16 (4), 445-462.
Seidman, G. W. (2007). Beyond the boycott: Labor rights, human rights, and transnational activism . Russell Sage Foundation.
Sonnenberg, S., & Hensler, B. (2013). Monitoring in the Dark: An Evaluation of the International Labour Organization’s Better Factories Cambodia Monitoring and Reporting Program; International Human Rights and Conflict Resolution Clinic. International Human Rights and Conflict Resolution Clinic, Mills Legal Clinic, Stanford Law School and Worker Rights Consortium .
Stiglitz, J. E., Walsh, C., & Gillette, D. (2002). Economics, Principles of Microeconomics and Principles of Macroeconomics . WW Norton.
War on Want. (2016, September 21). Sweatshops in China. Retrieved November 6, 2019, from https://waronwant.org/sweatshops-china.
Wickramasekara, P. (2008). Globalisation, international labour migration and the rights of migrant workers. Third World Quarterly , 29 (7), 1247-1264.
Wilsey, M., & Lichtig, S. (n.d.). The Nike Controversy. Retrieved November 6, 2019, from https://web.stanford.edu/class/e297c/trade_environment/wheeling/hnike.html.
Worstall, T. (2015). The Outrage Of Child Labor In Bangladeshs Sweatshops. Retrieved November 6, 2019, from https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2016/12/19/the- outrage-of-child-labour-in-bangladeshs-sweatshops/.
